North American Union: It's the real deal

Ever since former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton proclaimed that she and her husband were the victims of a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” “conspiracy” has been the hot word used to ridicule your opponents.

When President George W. Bush wanted to avoid answering questions about whether the Security and Prosperity Partnership is the prelude to a North American Union connected by a three-country superhighway, he accused SPP critics of believing in a conspiracy.

By definition, conspiracies are usually secret. There’s nothing secret about right-wingers organizing to criticize the Clintons and their goals, and there’s nothing secret about plans to morph the United States into a North American Union.

The elites, however, must be feeling the heat. Following the Hudson Institute’s helpful suggestion to change the name of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the fourth annual SPP meeting to be held in New Orleans on April 21 will now be called the North American Leaders Summit, and the promoters of the TransTexas Corridor are trying to change its name to “regional loop.”

To see what the elites are planning, you don’t have peek through keyholes or plant a spy under the table. Just read their published reports.

The words most frequently used to describe their goals are “economic integration,” “labor mobility,” “free movement of goods, services and people across open borders,” and “harmonization” of regulations.

The Council on Foreign Relations published a major report May 17, 2005, only two months after the Security and Prosperity Partnership was announced by President Bush, then-Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005. The Council on Foreign Relations document explaining SPP’s goals and methodology was posted on the U.S. State Department website, thereby confirming its authenticity.

The report explains that the three SPP amigos at Waco “committed their governments” to “Building a North American Community” by 2010 with a common “outer security perimeter,” “the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico,” allowing Mexican trucks “unlimited access,” “totalization” of illegal immigrants into the U.S. Social Security system, and “a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution.”

The prestigious Center for Strategic & International Studies published a report in 2007 called “North American Future 2025 Project.” It advocates “economic integration,” the “free flow of people across national borders” and “policies that integrate governments.”

The CSIS report even calls for “harmonizing legislation” on intellectual property rights with other countries. That’s a direct attack on our U.S. patent system, which is the key to U.S. leadership in inventions and innovation.

The Hudson Institute published a 35-page white paper in 2007 called “Negotiating North America: The Security and Prosperity Partnership.” It states that SPP is the vehicle “for economic integration” with Mexico and Canada and even “combines an agenda with a political commitment.”

The white paper explains that SPP’s “design” is for the executive branch to exercise full “authority” to “enforce and execute” whatever is decided by a three-nation agreement of “civil service professionals” as though it were “law.” That means evading treaty ratification and even congressional legislation and oversight.

Don’t forget the importance of the Wall Street Journal and its longtime, very influential editorial-page editor, the late Robert Bartley. When Mexico’s Fox called for NAFTA to evolve into something like the European Union, Bartley wrote: “There is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper.”

In his book “Post-Capitalist Society,” influential business writer Peter F. Drucker wrote, “The economic integration of the three countries into one region is proceeding so fast that it will make little difference whether the marriage is sanctified legally or not.”

When Larry King asked Fox about plans for a “Latin America united with one currency,” Fox answered in the affirmative. He said that one currency was part of the “vision” of the Free Trade Area of the Americas that Bush agreed to in the Declaration of Quebec City in 2001.

So now we know why the Bush administration won’t build a fence to interfere with “labor mobility” across open borders. Now we know why Bush won’t pardon former Border Patrol agents Ignatio Ramos and Jose Compean, while winking at the prosecutor’s deal to give immunity to a professional drug smuggler.

Now we know why Bush thumbed his nose at the overwhelming congressional votes (411-3 in the House and 75-23 in the Senate) to exclude Mexican trucks from U.S. roads. Now we know why Bush has been more persistent in pursuing “totalization” to put illegal immigrants into Social Security than to promote his proposal to privatize a small part of Social Security for U.S. citizens.

This is no conspiracy. It’s all part of the “economic integration” of the North American countries that’s been openly talked about for years.